8 April 2021

Yes, Russy, but Democrats have weaponized "systemic racism," so I think your post is inherently political. But that's OK. We should be openly discussing the nation's problems, many of which are inherently political, not, as you say, "shoving them under the rug."

Racism is still with us to a degree, but I think it is not "systemic." Thanks to Martin Luther King, thanks to Abraham Lincoln, and thanks to our founders (who failed to address slavery, but gave us a wise and practical constitutional framework for our republic, including a purposefully lengthy and difficult process by which this framework could be amended), we are already governed by a system of laws that grants us equality under the law, irrespective of race. It's not the system that commits these tragic shootings, it's troubled individuals that are responsible, and they are not always motivated by racial animus.

I agree that the Atlanta shooting is tragic, but it is tragic regardless of who was shot. The fact that multiple Asian Americans were victimized is probably just coincidental. The shooting does not necessarily point to widespread racial bias against Asian Americans. Even if shown to be racially motivated, this single act does not establish a trend.

I have long felt that the country was in serious trouble. Its government was growing too big and too powerful, was spending too much money (that it didn't have), was becoming more and more inbred, corrupt, and autocratic, less and less protective of individual rights, and less and less responsive to the true needs of We the People, whom it is supposed to serve.

Meanwhile, the media, which is supposed to hold government accountable for its excesses, has become a lapdog for and ally of the entrenched government establishment.

And these developments have not been accidental. They are the result of a deliberate and prolonged effort to change the American system, to transform this system into something alien to the vision that inspired its founding. Very gradually over the past half century this "progressive" effort has succeeded in infiltrating and taking control of America's power centers, the Democrat party, elements of the Republican Party, the media, the nation's universities, its system of primary and secondary public education, the entertainment industry, the Washington bureaucracy, the courts, and, more recently, corporate America and Silicon Valley.

Along came Donald Trump and his populist movement, a breath of fresh air. My impression of Trump, the man, is that, like the rest of us, he has his faults, but he also has some very positive character traits. He is direct, transparent, and down to earth, with a genuine affection for average working-class Americans. He says what he thinks. He keeps his promises. He fights back. He speaks truth to power. And he works very hard. These are, I think, very commendable traits.

I think he has been drawn into politics by the issues that confronted the nation in 2016: by its leftward drift during the past half century; by its lack of military preparedness, energy independence, and a secure border; by its trade inbalance with the rest of the world; by its loss of sovereignty to this world; and by the growing corruption of the nation's power centers in government and business. While I did not feel particularly comfortable with Trump's style at first, I thought that perhaps this style was what was needed to turn things around. Boy, did he ever turn things around!

So much so that the entrenched Washington establishment has reacted with both barrels. And very unfortunately for Donald Trump, for his 75 million (and more) supporters, and for the nation, they have succeeded in likely stealing an election and installing as president a man who is clearly not up to the job, and as vice president (who will soon be president), someone who is not up to the job either and who is not even the choice of Democrat voters. (Harris finished at the bottom during the Democrat primaries.) No one currently knows for sure who is actually calling the shots in Washington. I doubt it's Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Likely it is a cabal from the former Obama administration, perhaps even headed by Obama himself.

Donald Trump's presidency was tumultuous, but I have only one serious complaint about his performance as president. He did not explicitly address the debt issue during his term. Otherwise, I think that Donald Trump's record in office is quite remarkable ... particularly in view of what he has had to contend with politically. (And, relative to the debt, he did give us a robust economy, he did seriously reset our trading relationship with other countries, and he did begin to rebuild America's industrial base, all of which potentially create revenues that can contribute to paying off this debt, should anyone ever get around to paying it off!)

The January 6 breach of the capitol building was unfortunate and tragic. But this breach was not an insurrection. It was a confused and ultimately relatively peaceful riot/trespass that somehow did tragically result in the death of five individuals. Of the five who died, four were rioters, one of whom was shot by police when she attempted to pass through a window in the capitol building, an infraction that would normally not result in getting shot, much less killed. The remaining deaths, including the death of police officer Sicknick, have not yet been fully explained, but none seem to have resulted from a gunshot or other form of violent confrontation. These deaths appear to have been collateral in nature, possibly traceable to medical conditions. (Sicknick was initially reported to have been struck on the head by a fire extinguisher, but that apparently did not happen.)

Far more destructive than the January 6 breach of the capitol were the multitude of riots that took place over the past summer in many of America's Democrat-run cities. These riots resulted in extensive looting and property damage, the destruction (burning) of many small businesses, and the utter breakdown of law and order in some cities. (Looting and property damage on January 6 were, by comparison, minimal.) And what was the response to these summer riots by Democrat leaders who currently rail against the January 6 breach? Some criticism of Black Lives Matter, perhaps? Or Antifa? (Both groups were prominent in the summer riots!) No. It was "systemic racism!" An overreaction by police! The solution to the problem? To defund the police! Of course!

And what about the prolonged insurrection (soft coup) that Democrats have successfully engineered against the former president over the past five years, starting well before he was inaugurated and culminating in what was likely a stolen election last November? You say the election wasn't stolen? Perhaps, but I would say that the evidence suggests otherwise. There was clearly fraud; the only issue is whether that fraud was sufficient to overturn an election.

Quite aside from any specific evidence of election fraud, there are a number of considerations that make me think that the election was likely stolen. 1) It seems very unlikely that a man who basically didn't campaign and is clearly in cognitive decline, running against an energetic and successful incumbent president whose many rallies were attended by tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters, could legitimately win such an election. 2) Trump won 19 of 20 bellwether counties across the nation. It should have been a Trump landslide. 3) Trump was well ahead on election night. All of a sudden, in the early morning hours, his lead in the battleground states disappeared, never to return. 4) The election engendered thousands of affidavits of election fraud, each filed by a witness on penalty of perjury. 5) Election integrity is crucial to the democratic process. The election needs to be thoroughly and impartially investigated. It does no one any good to have half the nation thinking that the current president is illegitimate and that the rule of law no longer prevails in America. But there has been no such investigation, and the courts have thus far uniformly refused to hear challenges to the election. This is looking very much like an elaborate coverup.

You say that Democrats are honorable people and would never steal an election or cover up the fact? I look at the past five years and wonder what has inspired such confidence in their integrity? Michael Flynn had been an advisor to President Obama and had opposed his Iran policy. Democrats did not want Flynn advising Trump. So they scuttled his appointment as National Security Advisor to Trump by setting a perjury trap for him. They illegitimately employed FISA warrants to spy on other Trump campaign associates. They funded and publicized the salacious and made-up Trump dossier and accused the Trump administration of colluding with Russians. That preposterous-on-the-face-of-it charge somehow wound up as a Special Counsel investigation that took several years to decide that no, there was no Russian collusion. That investigation was followed by the first of two sham impeachments, arising out of a routine phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Then Democrat governors and Democrat mayors allowed riots to run rampant in Democrat-run cities over the summer, thinking that this chaos would help them in November. Then came the stolen election and Trump's second impeachment, falsely claiming Trump's January 6 rally in Washington DC had incited an insurrection. (The rally was in protest of the stolen election. It did unsuccessfully petition Vice President Pence to decertify this election, and it did not end well.)

You may think, improperly, that Trump is venal and underhanded. If so, he is a piker by comparison with those in charge of the Democrat Party! And Watergate also pales by comparison!

Defunding police is not the only ill-conceived and destructive policy that has been or is currently being pursued by Democrats. The Biden administration has turned Trump's sensible immigration policy upside down. It has canceled his successful but incomplete efforts to secure the southern border, including his hard won remain-in-Mexico agreement with the Mexican president. It is openly encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border and roam freely over our countryside, and it is promising them a path to citizenship. In so doing, it also inevitably enriches the cartels and facilitates the distribution of deadly cartel drugs among Americans.

It has also turned Trump's sensible energy policy upside down. It wants to completely eradicate fossil fuels as a source of energy. It is obsessed with rapidly replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources (wind and solar). This despite the fact that these sources cannot fully meet our needs and are significantly more expensive and less reliable than fossil fuels. Despite the fact that, with fossil fuels, we are energy independent. Despite the fact that we really don't know for sure what lies ahead climatically.

The current administration's energy policy is hostage to the unproven hypothesis that carbon emissions will result in imminent and grave planetary consequences, in particular, in an unacceptable rise in sea level. This hypothesis is difficult to evaluate because the geophysical system is complex and the pace of these changes is glacially slow. Any rise would be expected to play out over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. That gives us time to better understand what is going on and, if necessary, to develop and enact countermeasures. Accordingly, the administration's proposed solution to the perceived crisis, the green new deal, is not only unproven and exorbitantly expensive, it is premature. And it may be totally unnecessary. (It is also a sweetheart deal at taxpayer expense for developers and their politician friends.)

Meanwhile, Democrats ignore the immediate and deadly serious national security implications of their war on fossil fuels. Liquid fossil fuels are essential to our defense posture. Cancelling the oil industry seriously threatens our national security. With China challenging the freedom of navigation in the western Pacific, claiming Taiwan, and looking towards expanding its influence throughout the world, the USA must maintain a military posture second to none.

Yes, we need to be attentive to environmental issues, and, with the world's burgeoning population and advancing technology, we become increasingly a player in these issues. But let's not embark on questionable and potentially fiscally ruinous environmental policies without first making sure that these policies are necessary and that they will work as projected.

Which brings me to the really scary part, the cancel culture. Democrats do not apparently wish to compete over ideas. If your version of the truth differs from theirs, they don't want to hear what you have to say. Indeed, they don't want anyone to hear what you have to say. And they will go to great lengths to discourage you from saying it. As in cancel your speech on social media (and elsewhere)! Or even cancel your job!

Donald Trump's Twitter account has been cancelled. (He has first amendment rights, same as the rest of us!) Lou Dobbs's #1 show on Fox Business channel has also been cancelled, presumably because he dared to interview Sidney Powell, both of whom think the election was stolen. Lou and Sidney both speak truth to power and are heroes of mine, They are both currently without a platform and are under attack legally. Sidney, in particular, is sitting on what she calls a "kraken" of evidence of election fraud. Will it ever see the light of day in a courtroom? I think the survival of our republic may depend upon it.

Nothing is more central to the American experience than our first-amendment right to speak freely, particularly, it seems to me, with regard to political matters. Conservatives no longer have full access to that right. At issue is the election of 2020 and whether one should be allowed to publicly question the legitimacy of this election. Of course! What could be more textbook American than that? If I am not allowed to criticize the conduct of an election, what kind of right do I have to speak freely? Instead of trying to cancel my speech, why not try to convince me that the election was conducted properly? (By mounting a thorough and independent investigation of this election that can be believed by everyone!)

It doesn't help for the courts to refuse to hear the evidence that has already surfaced in relation to this issue. I don't know precisely what is going on here, but it appears that the courts (including SCOTUS) are reluctant to get involved. Meanwhile the issue goes unresolved, the former president is subjected to a second show trial, and the new president is inaugurated under a cloud of suspicion. It all has the appearance of a giant coverup, further confusing the situation and reducing public confidence in their government.

It doesn't end with the first amendment. The second amendment is also under attack. This attack is on two fronts. First, there is the long-standing effort to directly restrict the private ownership of guns. Second, there is the current militarization (in the form of fencing, razor wire, and National Guard troops by the thousands) of Washington, DC. This militarization takes advantage of the January 6 breach (never let a crisis go to waste!) to advocate for gun control, suggesting a) it is government that has the guns and should have the guns and b) guns in the the hands of Trump supporters are a threat to the republic. (Militarization is necessary to protect the Biden/Harris administration from the "domestic terrorists" of Trump's populist movement!)

This naked display of force has long since outrun whatever initial justification it may have once had. Currently, it constitutes nothing less than a brazen declaration by the Speaker that she and her Democrat allies are in charge and will brook no repeat of January 6. Never mind that no such repeat is threatened and that the January 6 breach was irresponsibly politicized to support the second failed attempt at impeaching and convicting the former president.

Having stolen one election, Democrats are hellbent on biasing future elections in their favor by federalizing election procedures. The constitution is clear on this issue. The state legislatures are responsible for conducting elections, not the federal government. So will the Democrats seek a constitutional amendment? No, they are pushing the thinnest of congressional majorities to enact what would seem to be anti-constitutional legislation, HR #1. Will the courts entertain a challenge to this legislation and rule in favor of the constitution, should HR #1 pass? Based on SCOTUS's response to the recent election challenges, I have my doubts.

To further consolidate power, Democrats propose to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and to the District of Columbia, creating a more substantial majority in the house and senate. In addition, they propose to eliminate the senate filibuster. Republicans respond by saying they will deny the senate a quorum. Just how this all plays out I cannot even begin to speculate.

And they want to change the balance in the Supreme Court in their favor by packing this court, increasing the number of justices and ensuring an activist court.

These are all end runs around the constitution. The framers wanted the political process to be slow and deliberate. Democrats aren't interested in slow and deliberate. They aren't interested in debating issues. In bipartisan compromise. It's their way or the highway. If you don't agree with them, they will ram through their programs, regardless. Never mind that We the People don't buy what they are selling. They will do as they please ... and then spend taxpayer money to bribe enough voters with free stuff to keep themselves in power.

The bottom line is that Democrats want to radically change the American system that has guided this nation through the past two and a half centuries and is the envy of the world.

I, and what I think are, at root, a substantial majority of Americans, do not want these changes. We want to retain our independence, our freedoms, our sovereignty, and our personal property. We do not want government controlling our lives and redistributing our wealth. Charity should be a voluntary act. America should be a land of opportunity, not government dependence.

You are, perhaps understandably, focused on issues of race. I don't know if human nature (our DNA) will ever allow the complete elimination of racial tensions, but it seems to me that you can hardly do better than what conservatives currently aspire to in the USA, that is, individual freedom, individual responsibility, opportunity, and the rule of law, with all of us equal and equally accountable under this law, irrespective of race and status.

We need to stick with the constitutional system that we have inherited from King, Lincoln, and our founders and say no to the nonsensical and destructive policies of the current administration.

I could go on, Russy, but I will stop there.

Russ